POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Several policy implications emerge from this research. The first and foremost issue of contention is the identification of the urban poor. This is also consistent with the findings in Paul and others (2012). While information on the type of housing structure was available, the authors still think a reliable indicator of poverty might be expenditure, which is being used by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) of India in their household surveys. The consistency of expenditure with that reported by the NSSO for 2004/05, has been confirmed.

The research indicated that a majority of the slum dwellers were receiving various public services, such as water supply (100 per cent, although it was a public tap for half of them), electricity (83 per cent), street lights (93 per cent), roads (92 per cent), drainage (72 per cent), primary health care centres (24 per cent) and government schools (46 per cent). Public toilets and garbage collection were public services less available in slums where these slums were found wanting, as only 22 per cent had access to public toilets and 13 per cent of slum dwellers had access to garbage collection. In fact, Gupta, Arnold and Lhungdim (2009) found that in Chennai (along with other cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata), not even one out of every four slum households used toilet facilities. This implies that there is great potential for policy to influence and incentivize the entry of private service providers into slums.

Having noted the above regarding various public services, 30 per cent of the slum dwellers were found to have a problem with public services, with half of them being drainage related. In addition, two thirds of them approached someone to resolve the problem, nearly 89 per cent did so collectively, but for most (82 per cent), the problems were not resolved. This indicates that the problem with service delivery is primarily not access, but effectiveness and reliability. Service providers also have to be made more accountable and responsive, as very few agreed that the corporators/

councilors have not done anything substantial for the betterment of their locality.

For purposes of this paper, the population was related to enterprises in the slums (200 firms in 50 enterprises were sampled and a headcount was conducted, which indicated that there was on average 25 enterprises per slum) to examine how well the enterprises catered to the needs of the slum population. This showed that there was an enterprise for every 30 persons on average, taking into account the 50 slums in which a full headcount was done.

Another expected finding is that very few poor households had health insurance, with nearly 85 per cent of them financing their health needs out of their own savings. Given the nature of health and emergency needs, it might be too expensive to finance such costs through private means. One possible approach would be to explore health insurance options and if there is any scope for group welfare schemes for the slum dwellers as a whole. Surprisingly, none of the respondents showed any awareness of the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), a health insurance scheme for below poverty line families, which was launched in 2007. The objective of RSBY, a programme not specifically targeted at urban areas, is to provide insurance coverage for major health shocks that involve hospitalization.

Another surprising finding is that in the survey of enterprises, a very small proportion (less than 1 per cent) had approached a bank for loan. Most (80 per cent) of the enterprises used their own savings or borrowed money (18 per cent) from family, relatives and friends. However, given the usurious nature of such transactions with pawnbrokers, money lenders and microfinance institutions, the complete bankability of urban areas including slums should be seriously considered.

One of the things as it relates to human capital is that roughly 48 per cent of the children in the surveyed households went to government schools, whereas nearly 38 per cent of children went to private schools. While the urban poor households continue to finance their children’s education through their own savings, given the prohibitive costs of private schooling, appropriate investments should be made in government schools, so that the poor can continue to get quality education in government schools.

Finally, given the startling findings in this paper, there may be a case for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India to replicate this effort in other cities of India in order to not only formulate sustainable policies to support urban poverty reduction, but also to appreciate their contribution to the city and national economies as a whole.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, Siddharth (2011). The state of urban health in India: comparing the poorest quartile to the rest of the urban population in selected states and cities. Environment and Urbanization Asia, vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 13-28.

Chaudhuri, Siladitya, and Nivedita Gupta (2009). Levels of living and poverty patterns: a district-wise analysis for India. Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, No. 9, pp. 94-110.

Deshingkar, P. (2006). Internal migration, poverty and development in Asia. Briefing Paper, No. 11 (October). London: Overseas Development Institute. Available from www.odi.org.uk/

publications/briefing/bp_internal_migration_oct06.pdf.

Frankenhoff, C.A. (1967). Elements of an economic model for slums in a developing economy.

Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 27-36.

Gaur, K, K. Keshri, and W. Joe (2013). Does living in slums or non-slums influence women’s nutritional status? Evidence from Indian mega-cities. Social Science and Medicine, vol. 77 (January), pp. 137-46.

Gupta, Kamla, Fred Arnold, and H. Lhungdim (2009). Health and Living Conditions in Eight Indian Cities. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), India, 2005-06. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences; Calverton, Maryland: ICF Macro.

Hayami, Yujiro, A.K. Dikshit, and S.N. Mishra (2006). Waste pickers and collectors in Delhi. Poverty and environment in an urban informal sector. Journal of Development Studies, vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 41-69.

India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2009). India Urban Poverty Report. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Barbara (2013). Just the Facts 101: Textbook Key Facts. Ventura, CA: Cram 101 Publishing.

Mitra, Arup (1992). Urban poverty: a rural spillover? Indian Economic Review, Special number, pp. 403-419.

(2010). Migration, livelihood and well-being: evidence from Indian city slums. Urban Studies, vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 1371-1390.

Olajoke, Abolade, and others (2013). Contributions of urban informal enterprises to the economy of Ibadan, Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Social Science, vol. 13, No. 5, version 1.0.

Paul, Samuel, and others (2012). The State of Our Cities: Evidence from Karnataka. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Sinha, Anushree, N. Sangeeta, and K.A. Siddiqui (1999). Study on the Impact of Alternate Policies on the Economy with Special Reference to the Informal Sectors: A Multisectoral Study. New Delhi: Ford Foundation.

Sridhar, Kala Seetharam, and Nivedita Kashyap (2014). Benchmarking cities: evidence from India. In Urbanization in Asia: Governance, Infrastructure and the Environment, Kala S. Sridhar and Guanghua Wan, eds. New Delhi: Springer.

Sridhar, Kala Seetharam, and A.V. Reddy (2014). Contribution of the urban poor: a pilot study from Bengaluru, India. In Inclusive Urban Planning: State of the Urban Poor Report 2013. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

TeamLease an IIJT (2009). India Labor Report 2009: The Geographic Mismatch & A Ranking of Indian States. Bangalore.

Ulack, Richard (1978). The role of urban squatter settlements. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 68, No. 4 (December), pp. 535-550.

Vakulabharanam, V., and S. Motiram (2012). Understanding poverty and inequality in urban India since reforms: bringing quantitative and qualitative approaches together. Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 48, No. 47-48, pp. 44.